Seriously guys, this is not about your policy preferences. This is about the Court having avoided stating what the law currently mandates. Once that decision is made, we can argue about how/if the constitution should be amended until we are blue in the face.
So, on topic:
Who thinks comma usage will be a factor here?
The Convention adopted:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But the National Archives have:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Seriously guys, this is not about your policy preferences. This is about the Court having avoided stating what the law currently mandates. Once that decision is made, we can argue about how/if the constitution should be amended until we are blue in the face.
So, on topic:
Who thinks comma usage will be a factor here?
The Convention adopted:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But the National Archives have:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It is also interesting that the capitalization is different between the convention and national archives version.
I don't think the commas will play much in this case because the only people that would effect are the strict constructionists and I don't remember but I don't think many are /truly/ strict constructionists.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
They are when it's politically convenient and look the other way when it isn't. Which is why home grown marijuana is regulated by the interstate commerce clause.
They are when it's politically convenient and look the other way when it isn't. Which is why home grown marijuana is regulated by the interstate commerce clause.
Which is what I meant by the "/truly/" part of the comment.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
They are when it's politically convenient and look the other way when it isn't. Which is why home grown marijuana is regulated by the interstate commerce clause.
Which is what I meant by the "/truly/" part of the comment.
which is why it will make ALL the difference, depending on which side the comma benefits more.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
You could apply this reasoning to ban nearly anything. "I think there are responsible workers out there, but I don't think we should let everyone work because some people can work responsibly and others can't. How many marriages have been destroyed because of the long work days of the work-addicted? Please, think of the children!"
The response here is that being free means having the freedom to make poor decisions. Just because some people will abuse their freedom to do things not in their best interests (like becoming addicted to drugs or destroying their home life) doesn't mean freedom should be denied to other, more responsible people.
Yes except guns and hard drugs have a special property unlike other things. They are inherintly more dangerous when used improperly and they are easier to use improperly. They also have the property of not being a basic necessity. You need your car to get to work even though it is dangerous. You don't need drugs or guns to perform basic day to day functions.
Actually, you don't NEED a car to go to work, just like you don't NEED a gun to protect yourself. Maybe you should just move closer to where you work, so you don't have to use one. Cars kill far more people than guns do, and millions of people drive irresponsibly and end up hurting someone. Plus, they are destroying the environment at an astounding rate.
So, should we give up cars, too, while we're at it?
Actually, yes, you probably should. The costs of production (and shipping and all that) of cars, plus the costs related to their operation over their useful lifetime vs. something like a comprehensive rail system or bus network (or even bike network) does not bode well for cars. Then we get all of the issues with carbon dioxide and other pollutants that are emitted by cars, and there emerges a very good case for the abolition of private vehicles. That'll never happen, though. The political clout of the car manufacturers in North American is just insane.
Also, on behalf of all Canadians everywhere, I'd like to formally ask all American gun owners to either A) destroy their handguns so they can't be used, or lock those fuckers up so tight that it'll be impossible to remove them from the premises or actually shoot them even if they are removed. The number one cause of gun crime where I live in B.C. are smuggled handguns from the U.S. There's been 7 shootings in and around Metro Vancouver in about as many weeks, all spats between gangs, and all made possible by our lovely trade relationship with our southern neighbours.
Guns are rather strictly controlled here in Canada, and it's worked out fairly well, even if the long gun registry continues to be a fiscal fiasco. Handguns have been restricted weapons since 1934, and automatic weapons or any armament that isn't a legal long gun or restricted hand gun is prohibited by law. Furthermore, there are rules governing things like magazine size and the types of ammunition that is legally available to private citizens. All of which have been effective laws at dealing with gun crime, and the vast majority of which don't impact the rights of citizens adversely, nor hit them in the pocketbook.
You could apply this reasoning to ban nearly anything. "I think there are responsible workers out there, but I don't think we should let everyone work because some people can work responsibly and others can't. How many marriages have been destroyed because of the long work days of the work-addicted? Please, think of the children!"
Well, first of all, we don't let just anyone work. They have to be of sound body and mind before they are allowed out in the work force. If you aren't of sound body and mind, say, you are a child, or your are disabled in such a way that would severely impact your ability to work, the government doesn't let you work. At least here, there's something called the Worker's Compensation Board; if you are hurt on the job and you can't work (for whatever reason), you are legally not allowed to work. The government provides a disability pension. The same if you are a child. You can't work until you are a certain age, and, presumedly, have a certain level of mental and physical prowess that would allow you to work safely.
People want to ban guns because what they do is they put an inordinate amount of power into people's hands that may or may not have the proper knowledge to handle them responsibly. Unless I'm a Montessori teacher or something, I'm not going to let a five year old boil water on a hot stove - why would I do that? The five year old doesn't have the knowledge to act responsibly with regards to both the stove and the boiling water. Through proper education, the five year old may come to a point wherein he could deal with the stove and the boiling water, but even then, I would want to be damn sure that he knew what he was doing before he burnt either himself or the kitchen itself.
That's true of guns as well, but the problem goes further because a gun gives the user more power than a pot of boiling water. It is incredibly easy to do significant and devastating harm to others and yourself, and because of this, it only makes sense that gun ownership and usage should be limited to those who have the knowledge and responsibility to conduct themselves with regards to the guns in the best and safest manner possible. In Canada, before you ever are allowed to own or transport a firearm, you have to take a mandatory safety course (including for long arms), and then thereafter be licensed and have your firearm registered with the government. Even then, only certain types of approved fire arms are allowed to be handled and used by private citizens. Anything approaching tactical or military grade is severely limited and restricted; only the Canadian Forces can use automatic rifles, and only the CF and law enforcement can have rifles that have more than a 5 round magazine or 7 rounds for hand guns.
I was sad to learn that SCOTUS won't be taking this up until next summer - meaning it will be made in the middle of a contentious general election campaign. Also, seven months of talking about gun control = booorrrrinnnnggg.
You could apply this reasoning to ban nearly anything. "I think there are responsible workers out there, but I don't think we should let everyone work because some people can work responsibly and others can't. How many marriages have been destroyed because of the long work days of the work-addicted? Please, think of the children!"
The response here is that being free means having the freedom to make poor decisions. Just because some people will abuse their freedom to do things not in their best interests (like becoming addicted to drugs or destroying their home life) doesn't mean freedom should be denied to other, more responsible people.
Yes except guns and hard drugs have a special property unlike other things. They are inherintly more dangerous when used improperly and they are easier to use improperly. They also have the property of not being a basic necessity. You need your car to get to work even though it is dangerous. You don't need drugs or guns to perform basic day to day functions.
Actually, you don't NEED a car to go to work, just like you don't NEED a gun to protect yourself. Maybe you should just move closer to where you work, so you don't have to use one. Cars kill far more people than guns do, and millions of people drive irresponsibly and end up hurting someone. Plus, they are destroying the environment at an astounding rate.
So, should we give up cars, too, while we're at it?
Hey look an argument that is an incredible strawman in a gun thread. I hate to say it, but you're far more likely to survive any given car crash then a gunshot wound. The whole "gushing blood" vs "man my fender" thing makes more of a difference then you might think.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Levels of gun crime in Britain are still at the 1997 level.
I conclude there is no great sweeping utility in banning guns.
Britain's guns were highly restricted before this, however. I'd agree that going from "highly restricted" to "really highly restricted" sees diminishing returns.
Irond Will on
0
Options
ShogunHair long; money long; me and broke wizards we don't get alongRegistered Userregular
Levels of gun crime in Britain are still at the 1997 level.
I conclude there is no great sweeping utility in banning guns.
Really? I had thought it went down a fairly small amount (but not neglibigle) meanwhile the stabbings and the beatings took off like nobody's business. Fueled in part because, seriously, fuck Manchester United.
WHAT
Where's my club and shank I'm taking you down moniker
More Canadians massaging their genitals with copies of Bowling for Columbine. We get it - Canada's great. But if you want to make cars or guns go away, be subtle and raise their prices until they're prohibitively expensive to own, don't ban them.
More Canadians massaging their genitals with copies of Bowling for Columbine. We get it - Canada's great. But if you want to make cars or guns go away, be subtle and raise their prices until they're prohibitively expensive to own, don't ban them.
I vote a 30% excise on the price of ammunition. Legislate it under the auspices of better body armor for the soldiers in Iraq. Actually that should probably be done anyway.
Also, on behalf of all Canadians everywhere, I'd like to formally ask all American gun owners to either A) destroy their handguns so they can't be used, or lock those fuckers up so tight that it'll be impossible to remove them from the premises or actually shoot them even if they are removed. The number one cause of gun crime where I live in B.C. are smuggled handguns from the U.S. There's been 7 shootings in and around Metro Vancouver in about as many weeks, all spats between gangs, and all made possible by our lovely trade relationship with our southern neighbours.
Obviously, the solution to this is to ban all legally owned handguns in Canada. (Not directed at you, just a general annoyance.) I understand your frustration though, 97% of firearms recovered by Vancouver police are illegal firearms.
Guns are rather strictly controlled here in Canada, and it's worked out fairly well, even if the long gun registry continues to be a fiscal fiasco. Handguns have been restricted weapons since 1934, and automatic weapons or any armament that isn't a legal long gun or restricted hand gun is prohibited by law. Furthermore, there are rules governing things like magazine size and the types of ammunition that is legally available to private citizens. All of which have been effective laws at dealing with gun crime, and the vast majority of which don't impact the rights of citizens adversely, nor hit them in the pocketbook.
Well, yes and no. Firearm crime has tracks at roughly the same rate as violent crime in general. While gun crime has decreased since the last set of new laws (long gun registration) it still follows the same long term trend of gradual decline. It's much easier (and a touch cheaper) to get a handgun illegally than it is to go through the long process of the getting one legally. Magazine size restrictions can usually be defeated without too much effort depending on the design, never mind just getting the illegal version. The big difference is that the people who get the licenses and registrations are the same ones who won't modify a mag or carry a pistol on the street. I would argue difference between Canadian and American homicide rates are less dependant upon firearm laws than other factors.
I'm not against gun control in general and I think having to pass a safety course is a good thing. What I don't like is creating restrictions for law abiding citizens that offer very little or no benefit to the public.
This is part of the public policy question of the DC ban. Does the handgun restriction in "the murder capital of the US" actually reduce gun crime or not? If the answer is no, the ban shouldn't exist no matter how good it makes the lawmakers feel. Not that this has any effect on SCOTUS.
... and only the CF and law enforcement can have rifles that have more than a 5 round magazine or 7 rounds for hand guns.
Actually, it's 5 for semi-automatic rifles chambered for centerfire rounds. Bolt action, pump, etc and rimfire rifles have no restrictions. Handguns and restricted rifles are limited to 10 round magazines. Yes, a rifle deemed too dangerous to take anywhere but the range is allowed to have twice the magazine capacity of a hunting/plinking rifle. Speaking of laws that don't make a lot of sense...
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
More Canadians massaging their genitals with copies of Bowling for Columbine. We get it - Canada's great. But if you want to make cars or guns go away, be subtle and raise their prices until they're prohibitively expensive to own, don't ban them.
this works. also tightly controlled and making sure that anyone who gets one knows wtf their doing with them. would work for most drugs too, honestly, whos going to tell me that alcohol and tobacco less dangerous than pot or the coca tree? anyway, i think we just shouldnt let stupid people do things. if you cant pass a comprehensive gun safety test with a score damn close to 100% then you shouldnt be able to own a gun. if you cant do something similar for alcohol, it should be illegal for you to drink at any age. sadly, this is prejudice against the largest group of people in america, so it will never happen. now that i think about it, it should also be true for voting, mightve stopped the current mess.
conclusion: safety tests are good, taking away of ANY of the freedoms we currently enjoy should be considered VERY carefully.
i may have just thought of something that hasnt been said in this thread yet... wouldnt fewer gun laws make it easier for undercover FBI/DEA/ATF/(anyothersthatnormallycarrygunsimnotreallysurewhichonesdo) agents to carry guns unnoticed? its not a big thing, but im not in favor of making exceptions for law enforcement on stuff and im sure every little detail adding to your cover helps. im gueesing criminal orginzations look to see if someone is carrying a police issue firearm, and if they have one from home it just makes it easier. it also makes it easier for then to go to shooting ranges as a recreational thing as well as work, most probably dont, but maybe the few that do dont have such craptastic aim.(ive heard that its REALLY bad) really not big points, but their something to consider.
OH! i know , i say ban everything sharper or capable of moving faster than, say.... a standard carnival-prize goldfish. really, some old dead guy that noone gives a shit about said something about giving up freedom for safety = antihappy so that and the whole constitution thing kinda seal my position on this, especially considering the current supreme court.
tannish2 on
i don't know who is reading this, but you're a terrible person who should be savagely beaten by a panda with a bag of kittens.
also, please excuse anything in the post that sounded stupid. it was. and thats how half lawyer half insurance agent chicken-bears conquered thailand, korea and, most of france in the late 1300s.
More Canadians massaging their genitals with copies of Bowling for Columbine. We get it - Canada's great. But if you want to make cars or guns go away, be subtle and raise their prices until they're prohibitively expensive to own, don't ban them.
I didn't mean that at all, although I can see how I would come off that way. Sorry, but all I know is the Canadian experience with firearms. My issue isn't with legal gun ownership - I myself have a very nice rifle and shotgun that I like to shoot. It's fun. Moose tastes fucking good. I don't want to not be able to do those things. My issue is twofold: first, there are certain types of guns that no one should have - except perhaps the military. Second, most of the gun crime comes from illegal firearms - in Canada, that means either legal firearms that have been stolen from gun owners up here, or, much more commonly, firearms that have been smuggled into Canada from the U.S. Where they may or may not have been legally obtained.
On my first issue, I would really like to see very strict bans or restrictions placed on the ownership of certain types of guns - seriously, who needs a hand gun (except perhaps collectors) that has a barrel 3 inches or smaller? Who, besides the military, needs automatic or semi-automatic (although, there is discussion to be had with regards to semi-auto) weapons? You don't need to be able to pour 30+ rifle rounds into a moose or bear to take it down. You only need that kind of fire power to kill a person that's armoured or has a similar level of fire power.
If restrictions can do their job and prevent proliferation of such things, then they've done their job. In many ways, and this especially goes for the criminal element, fire arms are a collective action problem; as soon as one guy gets one, every one has to get one of they will be at a disadvantage. If one guy wants to be rid of them, he'll be at a disadvantage if he is the only one to not carry or use a firearm. If there is an effective means in place that prevents the people from getting the firearms, then it's a non-issue, and is actually beneficial to criminals and organized crime in general.
Magazine size restrictions can usually be defeated without too much effort depending on the design, never mind just getting the illegal version.
That's true enough, I suppose. I'm not a gunsmith, so I don't know what sort of mechanism would be possible to disable larger mag sizes. But, you are right, even then, if one is set on getting a larger mag, all one would have to do is buy it illegally.
What I don't like is creating restrictions for law abiding citizens that offer very little or no benefit to the public.
What we have right now is a set of half-measures. We have laws and restrictions (like the long-gun registry) that inconvenience law-abiding citizens and gun users overwhelming, while having little to no impact on crime. They are, however, a very good start and if the government went further, then there would be real impact on the problem. What we need to do is make more aggressive laws to deal with not "gun crime" as is traditionally used in the media, but illegal gun ownership and especially smuggling or illegal importation. The problem in the U.S. is that they can't even implement the half-measures - which would still be better than the nothing they have now.
Actually, it's 5 for semi-automatic rifles chambered for centerfire rounds. Bolt action, pump, etc and rimfire rifles have no restrictions.
I had no idea. But then, I haven't really thought about it - both my rifle and my father's rifle have a 5 round mag, and they are both bolt action.
Yes, a rifle deemed too dangerous to take anywhere but the range is allowed to have twice the magazine capacity of a hunting/plinking rifle. Speaking of laws that don't make a lot of sense...
I'm pretty sure that's in place to make it possible for athletes to legally compete in bi-athlon. I seem to remember the Olympic-sanctioned rifles are considered restricted weapons in Canada.
On my first issue, I would really like to see very strict bans or restrictions placed on the ownership of certain types of guns - seriously, who needs a hand gun (except perhaps collectors) that has a barrel 3 inches or smaller? Who, besides the military, needs automatic or semi-automatic (although, there is discussion to be had with regards to semi-auto) weapons? You don't need to be able to pour 30+ rifle rounds into a moose or bear to take it down. You only need that kind of fire power to kill a person that's armoured or has a similar level of fire power.
Well, semi-autos are nice for plinking, gopher hunting, target shooting, double trap (as are over-unders), bear protection, etc. They're not strictly needed for hunting, but a non-negligible number of hunters use them. I'm with you 100% on automatics and burst fire. As for pistols, I'd like to see two things - first decrease the minimum barrel length to 3.5" or 4". Security guards can walk around a mall with a glock they're not allowed to own. A slight reduction would keep most common pistols in the legal realm. The second would be to include the chamber as part of the barrel for revolvers like they do with semi-autos. I can't for the life of me figure out why the distinction exists, especially with revolvers in that range generally being larger anyway.
What we have right now is a set of half-measures. We have laws and restrictions (like the long-gun registry) that inconvenience law-abiding citizens and gun users overwhelming, while having little to no impact on crime.
They are, however, a very good start and if the government went further, then there would be real impact on the problem. What we need to do is make more aggressive laws to deal with not "gun crime" as is traditionally used in the media, but illegal gun ownership and especially smuggling or illegal importation. The problem in the U.S. is that they can't even implement the half-measures - which would still be better than the nothing they have now.
I don't see how the long gun registry does that. I'd like to see people who possess or carry guns illegally or use them in crime spend a while in jail. I'd like to think it might make people consider if packing on a given night is a good idea. Until we can find a way to slow down the flow of illegal firearms from the US, most restrictions on
Yes, a rifle deemed too dangerous to take anywhere but the range is allowed to have twice the magazine capacity of a hunting/plinking rifle. Speaking of laws that don't make a lot of sense...
I'm pretty sure that's in place to make it possible for athletes to legally compete in bi-athlon. I seem to remember the Olympic-sanctioned rifles are considered restricted weapons in Canada.
Well, Olympic pistol shooters already have an exemption for the .25 and .32 pistols and ammunition, so I don't see why it would be necessary, but I really don't know about that one.
Hey, what are we doing agreeing on most of this anyway?
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited November 2007
If you legitimately carry a handgun for self defense, a barrel 3 inches or smaller is ideal for concealment. Saying "really, who needs one" is sort of denying the very idea of self defense with a gun.
Certain semi-autos are very useful for certain types of hunting - semi auto shotguns and bird hunting leap to mind.
Automatics are already heavily restricted, at least in the US, I don't know about Canada.
This case is SO silly to me.
You have Washington DC, which is a notoriously violent town, with some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet.
You can have a mayor on crack, but I can't have a gun, when I've never broken a law.
You can have liars and thieves running the government, but I can't have a gun.
You can have agency after agency of well trained thugs, gang after gang of ILLEGALLY ARMED criminals but GOD FORBID a citizen carry a gun to stick in a mugger's face.
And then you read the newspaper, you read about murders and gangs, and you cluck to yourselves
"Gosh how did those gangs get so bad? How do all these murderers get away with it?"
Well, you tell me. How does a tiny criminal minority keep a huge city - any city - in fear?
maybe with violence?
And seriously, all this stuff about "you can never resist the government, there's no way you can fight them, so that's a stupid argument for the second amendment" - that's flawed in so many ways.
First off, if a guy twice your size tries to kill you, do you roll over and take it or do you try what you can? Improbability of success does not change your right to attempt to defend yourself.
IRT "The founding fathers didn't know about our military technology" - OK, maybe not - but personal weapons haven't held still. It's not as though the military has made leaps and bounds while civilians still have muskets. And those founding fathers fought off a military armed with ships, cannons, many more and better equipped troops - they used personal firearms until they'd captured or purchased better.
There's also the example of the Civil War, where we saw, clearly, that a civil war inside the US would devide the military as well as the populace. We will never have a situation where the full might of the US military, as we know it, is turned on only civilians.
(oh, and guess what, in the civil war, the south made a remarkable resistance that started with...personal arms and captured arms)
And please can the person who held up two incidents (waco and ruby ridge) that were essentially single families in standoffs with entire government agencies as "militias" or "rebellions" please be held up to greater derision?
There can be no doubt, whatsoever, that the founding fathers ABSOLUTELY saw a gun as a tool with a place in a man's household. It's a fact. The idea of a world where the government tried to tell you you couldn't own a pistol or rifle would anger and scandalize them. Read their writings on the issue. And now, if you want to commemorate them, you have to walk up to their statues unarmed, with your faith firmly in the state. What bullshit.
You have Washington DC, which is a notoriously violent town, with some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet.
This is just simply untrue, and the kind of thing which shows a very skewed view of how many people live in many different places all over the world - without owning firearms, and without worrying about them much.
You have Washington DC, which is a notoriously violent town, with some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet.
This is just simply untrue, and the kind of thing which shows a very skewed view of how many people live in many different places all over the world - without owning firearms, and without worrying about them much.
Just how restrictive can gun laws be when a 3 hour round trip to the next state can get you a firearm legally? Also, why cant their be training courses involved with getting a gun license. The higher the caliber / lethality the more intensive the course.
Also, letting what criminals have access to, or do, define what laws you pass or how you interpret current laws is a bad idea. Even though trying to enact any gun control laws in the USA at this point is pretty much trying to put the genie back in the bottle. All the criminals already have their guns, and they are not going to give them back because its now more illegal for them to possess and use them. But then again, the sooner you enact the laws, the sooner the market will (begin to) dry up.
IRT "The founding fathers didn't know about our military technology" - OK, maybe not - but personal weapons haven't held still. It's not as though the military has made leaps and bounds while civilians still have muskets. And those founding fathers fought off a military armed with ships, cannons, many more and better equipped troops - they used personal firearms until they'd captured or purchased better.
There's also the example of the Civil War, where we saw, clearly, that a civil war inside the US would devide the military as well as the populace. We will never have a situation where the full might of the US military, as we know it, is turned on only civilians.
(oh, and guess what, in the civil war, the south made a remarkable resistance that started with...personal arms and captured arms)
Total misrepresentations of the history and development of military tactics ITT. I'll give you a hint: the American revolutionaries pioneered the first use of firearms for a type of small unit combat. Also the French gave you guys an assload of equipment so you could go fight a proper war and raise a standing army.
Also, I am coming to doubt you don't actually know what modern armored vehicles are like. Yeah they get blown up a lot, that doesn't mean they're not incredibly formidable.
Gun Control Legislation in its current form is rather stupid.
1. Our founding fathers intended the American public to be armed as part of the checks and balances approach our government is founded upon. Could the American public win a war against its own military? Probably not. However between divided loyalties, difficulties in urban warfare, and various other issues we see in Iraq an armed and angry populous can make things inconvenient to say the least. Let us hope soldiers are never ordered to fire on civilians, and let us hope civilians never feel the need to fire on soldiers.
2. Gun Legislation targets the weapons that are not used in crimes. Of the 11346 gun related fatalities in 2005 8,478 were from handguns and 2,868 were from "other guns." Of the 55 cops killed in 2005 42 were to handguns and 8 were to "other guns." From the bureau of justice "During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun." Other guns is used as a catchall for non handgun guns. What does that include? Hunting rifles, shotguns, Semi auto assault rifles, anything that is not classified as a handgun. Most gun legislation is aimed at this very category of guns.
3. The average criminal is not going to spend upwards of 15000 on a fully automatic assault rifle, then add another several thousand dollars in equipment just to commit a crime. You see that reflected in the numbers, your average gun collector is going to jump through the hoops, pay his dues, and walk away with a firearm that is likely much more valuable than what he would get from the average crime. We try and ban high capacity magazines, barrel shrouds, and various other additions your weekend warrior is going to understand and care about, but your criminal element is not.
4. If people want fully automatic weapons, let them. People can get them now. They are not used in crimes because they are cost prohibitive. The vast majority if gun crime is commited with cheap disposable guns that wont come under any form of gun regulation. What we see with gun legislation is always targeting the weekend hobbyist. Why pay upwards of 700 dollars for a quality handgun, when you can get something for a hundred dollars without all the paperwork, fingerprinting, and waiting period that cant be traced back to you if you toss it into a dark alley? You want to target the criminal, increase penalties on crimes where a firearm is used.
5. Set up your hoops and your weekend hobbyist will pay the money and fill out the forms so he can show his buddies his new fully automatic, high caliber, killomatic with the extended magazine. All while your criminals continue using cheap disposable firearms. The biggest and only gun legislation that really needs to be passed should be aimed at education. Making more people familiar with firearms, making sure the legal owners are educated and have a level of basic proficiency, and then let the free market do its work.
1. Our founding fathers intended the American public to be armed as part of the checks and balances approach our government is founded upon. Could the American public win a war against its own military? Probably not. However between divided loyalties, difficulties in urban warfare, and various other issues we see in Iraq an armed and angry populous can make things inconvenient to say the least. Let us hope soldiers are never ordered to fire on civilians, and let us hope civilians never feel the need to fire on soldiers.
Jesus, do people actually think like this in the U.S.? That's the most insane thing I've heard in a long time. You are saying that you anticipate the failure of democracy in your own country, and that such a failure is not necessarily a bad thing - and that all citizens should prepare for civil war? What the fuck kind of thinking is that?? Aren't you over killing civilians in the Mid East ostensibly to protect democracy? Why would you want it to fail in your own country?
2. Gun Legislation targets the weapons that are not used in crimes. Of the 11346 gun related fatalities in 2005 8,478 were from handguns and 2,868 were from "other guns." Of the 55 cops killed in 2005 42 were to handguns and 8 were to "other guns." From the bureau of justice "During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun." Other guns is used as a catchall for non handgun guns. What does that include? Hunting rifles, shotguns, Semi auto assault rifles, anything that is not classified as a handgun. Most gun legislation is aimed at this very category of guns.
Which gun legislation, exactly?
3. The average criminal is not going to spend upwards of 15000 on a fully automatic assault rifle, then add another several thousand dollars in equipment just to commit a crime. You see that reflected in the numbers, your average gun collector is going to jump through the hoops, pay his dues, and walk away with a firearm that is likely much more valuable than what he would get from the average crime. We try and ban high capacity magazines, barrel shrouds, and various other additions your weekend warrior is going to understand and care about, but your criminal element is not.
Who would ever spend 15 000 on a rifle? I've never bought a gun on the American black market, so I don't really know the actual going rates, but that seems a tad too high. Can't you get yourself a civilian version of an Armalite or Kalashnikov and rather easily convert it to fully automatic? Couldn't you just get yourself an illegal automatic gun from the same people you got your illegal hand gun from?
And, seriously, absolutely no one except perhaps the military needs a fully automatic assault rifle. Trust me, the most effective weapon against the biggest predators and game in North America is a shotgun with a slug. You will be able to take down absolutely anything that could ever threaten you with such a weapon - and I firmly believe that long arms should be available to citizens without too much hassle.
4. If people want fully automatic weapons, let them. People can get them now. They are not used in crimes because they are cost prohibitive. The vast majority if gun crime is commited with cheap disposable guns that wont come under any form of gun regulation. What we see with gun legislation is always targeting the weekend hobbyist. Why pay upwards of 700 dollars for a quality handgun, when you can get something for a hundred dollars without all the paperwork, fingerprinting, and waiting period that cant be traced back to you if you toss it into a dark alley? You want to target the criminal, increase penalties on crimes where a firearm is used.
Right, and marijuana is illegal because it's dangerous. Give me a fucking break. You can do more damage with a fully automatic weapon than just about anything else - much more than any drug, legal or illegal, currently available. Private citizens should not have the right or the ability to access such dangerous things just because they want them. We have a military and police forces for a fucking reason - we don't need yokels running around 'protecting' the free world with the most deadly small arms on the planet.
5. Set up your hoops and your weekend hobbyist will pay the money and fill out the forms so he can show his buddies his new fully automatic, high caliber, killomatic with the extended magazine. All while your criminals continue using cheap disposable firearms. The biggest and only gun legislation that really needs to be passed should be aimed at education. Making more people familiar with firearms, making sure the legal owners are educated and have a level of basic proficiency, and then let the free market do its work.
Ah, so we shouldn't target criminals at all in our legislation. Instead, we should make sure that they should be educated as to how to best acquire and use their new, illegal firearms to commit crimes most effectively. Education is only effective when firearms are controlled, and the overly dangerous arms are not available for use by any private citizen - law abiding or otherwise. Restrict the shit out of handguns, and punish not only the criminals involved in using illegal guns, but make the manufacturers and retailers financially liable. In a civil, urban* society (like much of the US is), there is no need for private gun ownership by the citizenry.
* Long gun ownership is a requisite for survival in many parts of rural Canada, and in all the parts that I've ever lived in or been to, I've never seen anyone with a handgun or use their long guns as anything but tools. Because seriously, grizzly bears are fucking scary.
Ok, I've got a question here. The 2nd Amendment states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So, if it says in big bold letters, sans caveats, that it "shall not be infringed", how do you get by passing ANY gun legislation? Isn't any restriction of Fire Arms an infringement on that right?
Ok, I've got a question here. The 2nd Amendment states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So, if it says in big bold letters, sans caveats, that it "shall not be infringed", how do you get by passing ANY gun legislation? Isn't any restriction of Fire Arms an infringement on that right?
Ok, I've got a question here. The 2nd Amendment states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So, if it says in big bold letters, sans caveats, that it "shall not be infringed", how do you get by passing ANY gun legislation? Isn't any restriction of Fire Arms an infringement on that right?
The biggest and only gun legislation that really needs to be passed should be aimed at education. Making more people familiar with firearms, making sure the legal owners are educated and have a level of basic proficiency, and then let the free market do its work.
You could do that with a graded licence system. A basic licence will get you a bolt-action rifle, break-open shotgun or a target pistol. As you gain the higher licences you get access to a semi-auto rifle, a pump action shotgun etc. There's a whole new revenue stream there for the NRA through selling training courses.
Also, to paraphrase Chris Rock, "We don't need gun control, we need bullet control." - nobody needs a thousand rounds to defend their home from a burglar.
Unfortunately I can't think of a way to limit the maximum ammo someone can own at one time without having a register of every person's ammo purchases and making them return the empty shells before buying more. You could restrict the amount someone can buy in one transaction like we do with over the counter medication, but someone who wants to get around that will just tour the gunshops until they've got as much as they want. One solution might be to make ammo ludicrously expensive if you buy it to take home but dirt cheap if you using it on a range. However, that would fuck over hunters and people who have the space to target shoot at home.
To be honest, it might be more economical for the government to offer to buy back illegally owned weapons no questions asked. That does run the risk of people breaking into gun shops to sell the weapons back to the government.
Gorak on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
IRT "The founding fathers didn't know about our military technology" - OK, maybe not - but personal weapons haven't held still. It's not as though the military has made leaps and bounds while civilians still have muskets. And those founding fathers fought off a military armed with ships, cannons, many more and better equipped troops - they used personal firearms until they'd captured or purchased better.
There's also the example of the Civil War, where we saw, clearly, that a civil war inside the US would devide the military as well as the populace. We will never have a situation where the full might of the US military, as we know it, is turned on only civilians.
(oh, and guess what, in the civil war, the south made a remarkable resistance that started with...personal arms and captured arms)
Total misrepresentations of the history and development of military tactics ITT. I'll give you a hint: the American revolutionaries pioneered the first use of firearms for a type of small unit combat. Also the French gave you guys an assload of equipment so you could go fight a proper war and raise a standing army.
Also, I am coming to doubt you don't actually know what modern armored vehicles are like. Yeah they get blown up a lot, that doesn't mean they're not incredibly formidable.
What do the capabilities of modern military armor have to do with what I posted? As for the use of guerrilla tactics by the founding fathers until they could procure foreign support, that sort of supports my point. 10 Russian invasions of Afghanistan were pushed back with superior knowledge of home ground and superior marksman with semi-autos (some of them actually had old M1s and Lee-Enfields) vs inferior training and superior equipment. What about the chilling effect armed citizenry had on Japanese attempts to land on the west coast in WWII?
What don't you and saggio get about this?
YES, the constitution implies every American should prepare for civil war or domestic invasion. YES, that is what it says, yes that is what many people believe.
What the fuck is the disconnect here? Why is that held to be such a tremendously implausible situation? Ignoring how silly it may or may not be, And WHAT HARM is done by the guns of people that believe it? Are there rabid constitutionalists robbing 7-11s for ammo money?
IRT to saggio's specific questions about automatics: Automatic weapons in civilian hands have been heavily regulated for a very long time and are individually tracked and heavily taxed- only serious or wealthy collectors and the occasional hollywood stunt studio can really afford to own them. You'd have to be tapped into the international black market to buy one, and it would probably be an overpriced Ukranian "cobra piece of junk."
Which is unconstitutional, if you ask me, since it prevents the everyman from arming himself in a way that allows him to realistically oppose a modern military :P
Proves your point about gun control? Mayhap. But that situation did not arise from any gun control legislation in our lifetime - it is the result of the National Firearms Act, an old law that INTELLIGENTLY divides guns into categories and INTELLIGENTLY makes provisions for ownership exceptions, grandfathering, and enforcement - it is 100 times the piece of legislation most proposed gun control law is.
Also, IRT to Gorak et al - I actually do, 100% support a system of graduated licensing for handguns, both as sensible stand-alone legislation and as a constitutionally viable alternative to individual gun registration.
I also think HEAVY targeting and profiling of those who purchase guns and report them stolen would be a realistic measure to keep guns off the street.
I don't see how a foreign invasion is comparable to a coup.
10 Russian invasions of Afghanistan were pushed back with superior knowledge of home ground and superior marksman with semi-autos (some of them actually had old M1s and Lee-Enfields) vs inferior training and superior equipment.
The people in Afghanistan were receiving a shitload of funding and weapons from various government.
What the fuck is the disconnect here? Why is that held to be such a tremendously implausible situation? Ignoring how silly it may or may not be, And WHAT HARM is done by the guns of people that believe it? Are there rabid constitutionalists robbing 7-11s for ammo money?
The people who do believe it are often people like the Patriot groups.
Ok, I've got a question here. The 2nd Amendment states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So, if it says in big bold letters, sans caveats, that it "shall not be infringed", how do you get by passing ANY gun legislation? Isn't any restriction of Fire Arms an infringement on that right?
Probably the elastic clause.
Still not sure what this means.
Anyway, since we're already interpreting restrictions into the 2nd amendment that aren't even there, what's wrong with a few more? How can one level of infringement be constitutional and the other not, when the amendment itself calls for none at all?
shryke on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
I don't see how a foreign invasion is comparable to a coup.
10 Russian invasions of Afghanistan were pushed back with superior knowledge of home ground and superior marksman with semi-autos (some of them actually had old M1s and Lee-Enfields) vs inferior training and superior equipment.
The people in Afghanistan were receiving a shitload of funding and weapons from various government.
What the fuck is the disconnect here? Why is that held to be such a tremendously implausible situation? Ignoring how silly it may or may not be, And WHAT HARM is done by the guns of people that believe it? Are there rabid constitutionalists robbing 7-11s for ammo money?
The people who do believe it are often people like the Patriot groups.
So, in the past, in these situations, outside support has offset the issue of the establishment's superior firepower, and that INVALIDATES the idea that such a standoff would be viable for the civilian side?
You're saying my Imaginary Candyland Scenario is silly because you're escalating it to a situation where the government has ringed all the crazy up in montana and moved heavy armor and air support in on them . . . that's NOT EXACTLY the idea. The idea is that the concept of an armed citizen and the inexact numbers thereof reduces the viability of tyrannic policy before it is enacted. Failing that, the "backup plan" as it were is to offer some sort of resistance until the military fragments politically or international assistance is available. You know, what guerrillas all over the world have done.
Titmouse, I don't know what you mean about "patriot" groups - did a group of patriots take over a building and start selling crack? Have roving patriots been mugging people on the subway? The one MAJOR crime I can think of that was perpetrated by right-wing nuts was not committed with ANY commercially available weapon, but rather with an improvised munition.
Titmouse, I don't know what you mean about "patriot" groups - did a group of patriots take over a building and start selling crack? Have roving patriots been mugging people on the subway? The one MAJOR crime I can think of that was perpetrated by right-wing nuts was not committed with ANY commercially available weapon, but rather with an improvised munition.
Another incident occurred in Fort Davis, Texas a year later in March of 1997 when a faction of the self-styled "Republic of Texas" militia group seized hostages. The Republic of Texas group believed that the annexation of Texas as a state in 1845 was illegal, that Texas should remain an independent nation, and that the legitimate government Texas was their leadership.[11]Joe and Margaret Ann Rowe were taken at gunpoint in retaliation for the arrest of member Robert J. Scheidt, who had been arrested on weapons charges. Leader Richard McLaren then declared that the group was in a state of war with the federal government.[12] The property was then surrounded by the entire Jeff Davis County sheriff's department, state troopers, Texas Rangers, and agents of the FBI.[11] McLaren's wife, Evelyn, convinced him to surrender peacefully after a week-long standoff. The McLarens and four other Republic of Texas members were sent to prison.[12]
So, in the past, in these situations, outside support has offset the issue of the establishment's superior firepower, and that INVALIDATES the idea that such a standoff would be viable for the civilian side?
Outside support was the main reason that these groups managed to do anything. Without it, they wouldn't stand a chance.
All of this ignores the fact that pretty much every civilian resistance has ended horribly since the 20th century. Afghanistan is now a shithole. After international support for the rebels come in, how the hell is the government supposed to be set up? I see no reason to believe that people will go back to the old government. Instead, a shitty government filled with extreme cronyism usually is formed. All of that international aid won't come out of the good of the countries' hearts. They will expect to gain a lot from it. The number one defense against tyrannies is to make sure that the government continues to run with normal checks and balances.
Couscous on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited November 2007
Every time a debate about gun control comes up, I have to go digging through DoJ and StatsCan numbers and I'm not doing it again.
All I'm going to say is that after looking through statistics for both American and Canadian rural and metropolitan crime rates, gun control and/or the proliferation of weapons has a negligible effect on violent crime rates. In fact, the only correlations I saw between crime rates in either country had to do with areas of extreme poverty, that is, in both nations, areas that exist in third world conditions of squalor (Like the forgotten Native reserves in Canada) homicide rates were eight times the national average. In both nations.
I support licensing and testing for people that want to own firearms. I support this for the same reason I support licensing and testing for people that want to own cars. They are tools capable of significant damage and death and the people using them should know how to use them safely.
Really, the idea that guns = violence has never once been supported by any kind of evidence ever and why people keep thinking this is something that grates on me like little else.
Nova_C on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
Titmouse, I don't know what you mean about "patriot" groups - did a group of patriots take over a building and start selling crack? Have roving patriots been mugging people on the subway? The one MAJOR crime I can think of that was perpetrated by right-wing nuts was not committed with ANY commercially available weapon, but rather with an improvised munition.
Another incident occurred in Fort Davis, Texas a year later in March of 1997 when a faction of the self-styled "Republic of Texas" militia group seized hostages. The Republic of Texas group believed that the annexation of Texas as a state in 1845 was illegal, that Texas should remain an independent nation, and that the legitimate government Texas was their leadership.[11]Joe and Margaret Ann Rowe were taken at gunpoint in retaliation for the arrest of member Robert J. Scheidt, who had been arrested on weapons charges. Leader Richard McLaren then declared that the group was in a state of war with the federal government.[12] The property was then surrounded by the entire Jeff Davis County sheriff's department, state troopers, Texas Rangers, and agents of the FBI.[11] McLaren's wife, Evelyn, convinced him to surrender peacefully after a week-long standoff. The McLarens and four other Republic of Texas members were sent to prison.[12]
So, in the past, in these situations, outside support has offset the issue of the establishment's superior firepower, and that INVALIDATES the idea that such a standoff would be viable for the civilian side?
Outside support was the main reason that these groups managed to do anything. Without it, they wouldn't stand a chance.
All of this ignores the fact that pretty much every civilian resistance has ended horribly since the 20th century. Afghanistan is now a shithole. After international support for the rebels come in, how the hell is the government supposed to be set up? I see no reason to believe that people will go back to the old government. Instead, a shitty government filled with extreme cronyism usually is formed. All of that international aid won't come out of the good of the countries' hearts. They will expect to gain a lot from it. The number one defense against tyrannies is to make sure that the government continues to run with normal checks and balances.
OK, so your argument is that because war is devastating, you should capitulate to invaders? I see what you mean about the cronyistic new government, though - the muslim taliban that came to power in Afghanistan was a TOTAL puppet for US interests, for example. And btw, in this particular example please name the INTERNAL AFGANI check and/or balance that would have appeased the external soviet invaders.
Yes, it's all well and good to say "armed resistence is very difficult and dangerous and we should all just get along" but to say because its better to do A, we should neuter ourselves in case of B...I don't see the point of that.
And those "republic of texas" guys? They would fall under what I mentioned before about isolated crackpots not being real examples. I knew those guys. They were isolated crackpots. The argument does assume that the party in rebellion has some sort of popular support and legitimate complaint. No one was going to bail the 14-man republic of texas out of the horrible injustices of life in the modern united states.
3. The average criminal is not going to spend upwards of 15000 on a fully automatic assault rifle, then add another several thousand dollars in equipment just to commit a crime. You see that reflected in the numbers, your average gun collector is going to jump through the hoops, pay his dues, and walk away with a firearm that is likely much more valuable than what he would get from the average crime. We try and ban high capacity magazines, barrel shrouds, and various other additions your weekend warrior is going to understand and care about, but your criminal element is not.
Who would ever spend 15 000 on a rifle? I've never bought a gun on the American black market, so I don't really know the actual going rates, but that seems a tad too high. Can't you get yourself a civilian version of an Armalite or Kalashnikov and rather easily convert it to fully automatic? Couldn't you just get yourself an illegal automatic gun from the same people you got your illegal hand gun from?
Actually, with enough time, money, and permits, you can get fully automatic rifles in the US, which do have to be registered. From what I've read, it's at least $10,000 to legally get an automatic rifle. It turns out that two people in the US have been murdered with legally owned automatic weapons, one of which was by a police officer. Just goes to show that the people who are willing to jump through a lot of hoops to own firearms are the people most likely to use them safely.
In most cases, it's either very, very difficult or impossible to convert a semi-auto into a full auto. I seem to remember a law against semi's that could be turned into autos, but my google-fu seems to be weak today.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Is that even a sentence? If we break it up by clauses it might be:
A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It depends on what is the main clause and what the other clauses are doing. Is the primary focus on militias? Is the primary focus on the right to keep and bear arms?
I think the "being necessary to the security of a free state" is the primary focus, the main concept being stressed. The rest of it modifies and clarifies, through a lack of clarity, what is necessary.
My guess is that the focus is not "Everyone ever ought to have guns always" but rather "States need to be Free" and the result of that is that gun ownership is required.
Really, the idea that guns = violence has never once been supported by any kind of evidence ever and why people keep thinking this is something that grates on me like little else.
While it may be true, do guns = safer environments? Is giving civilians things that are designed to kill the smartest thing to do?
And when you say that gun control doesn't mean less violent crime, do you take into account how many of these violent crimes result in people dieing from gunshots? Because I'm pretty sure the USA has the highest rate of gunshot deaths per capita than most countries.
Ok, I've got a question here. The 2nd Amendment states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So, if it says in big bold letters, sans caveats, that it "shall not be infringed", how do you get by passing ANY gun legislation? Isn't any restriction of Fire Arms an infringement on that right?
It also says "well regulated."
So, basically, the easiest and most logical answer is that we let people own guns, but force them to get licenses before they can own one or use one in any but the most controlled of conditions. Kind of like we do with cars.
But the gun nuts hate it because oh my god any regulation is terrible, and gun haters hate it because oh my god no one should ever own a gun ever.
3. The average criminal is not going to spend upwards of 15000 on a fully automatic assault rifle, then add another several thousand dollars in equipment just to commit a crime. You see that reflected in the numbers, your average gun collector is going to jump through the hoops, pay his dues, and walk away with a firearm that is likely much more valuable than what he would get from the average crime. We try and ban high capacity magazines, barrel shrouds, and various other additions your weekend warrior is going to understand and care about, but your criminal element is not.
Who would ever spend 15 000 on a rifle? I've never bought a gun on the American black market, so I don't really know the actual going rates, but that seems a tad too high. Can't you get yourself a civilian version of an Armalite or Kalashnikov and rather easily convert it to fully automatic? Couldn't you just get yourself an illegal automatic gun from the same people you got your illegal hand gun from?
Actually, with enough time, money, and permits, you can get fully automatic rifles in the US, which do have to be registered. From what I've read, it's at least $10,000 to legally get an automatic rifle. It turns out that two people in the US have been murdered with legally owned automatic weapons, one of which was by a police officer. Just goes to show that the people who are willing to jump through a lot of hoops to own firearms are the people most likely to use them safely.
In most cases, it's either very, very difficult or impossible to convert a semi-auto into a full auto. I seem to remember a law against semi's that could be turned into autos, but my google-fu seems to be weak today.
Wow. I still think it's absurd to pay $10 000 for a rifle, and also to allow non-military people to use or own them.
The idea is that the concept of an armed citizen and the inexact numbers thereof reduces the viability of tyrannic policy before it is enacted.
I'm kind of wondering if George Bush gave any thought to this when he allowed the torture of prisoners of war. What's that? It didn't even occur to him?
If you and your buddies having guns doesn't stop your federal government from torturing people (which is ILLEGAL in your Constitution), monitoring the communications of private citizens without court order, or racially profiling the brown people, what does it stop? Seriously, there's a bit of range in my examples, but they all don't seem to jive with the basic principles enumerated in the other, non Second Amendment parts of your Constitution. Aren't you supposed to be rising up with your fully automatic rifles, now? Or is torture and totalitarian infringements upon the privacy rights of citizens not tyrannical enough for you?
As for the use of guerrilla tactics by the founding fathers until they could procure foreign support, that sort of supports my point. 10 Russian invasions of Afghanistan were pushed back with superior knowledge of home ground and superior marksman with semi-autos (some of them actually had old M1s and Lee-Enfields) vs inferior training and superior equipment.
No. Just no. First of all, the Mujahadeen were funded by the Arab League (primarily Saudi Arabia), provided with modern weapons (including shoulder mounted AA missles) by the U.S. Military, and trained by the CIA and military advisors. The only reason why the Soviets and their Communist Party allies did not utterly crush the rebels has to do with the complex geopolitical realities of the day; the economic situation of the USSR at the time, its bilateral relations with countries in central Asia, and its interests in the Middle East. Also, the Soviets were there for 10 years and killed close to a million people, while suffering themselves much less in terms of casualities
You can fantasize all you want about fighting off a superior, modern force all day long. But you can do that just as well without hand guns or automatic rifles.
3. The average criminal is not going to spend upwards of 15000 on a fully automatic assault rifle, then add another several thousand dollars in equipment just to commit a crime. You see that reflected in the numbers, your average gun collector is going to jump through the hoops, pay his dues, and walk away with a firearm that is likely much more valuable than what he would get from the average crime. We try and ban high capacity magazines, barrel shrouds, and various other additions your weekend warrior is going to understand and care about, but your criminal element is not.
Who would ever spend 15 000 on a rifle? I've never bought a gun on the American black market, so I don't really know the actual going rates, but that seems a tad too high. Can't you get yourself a civilian version of an Armalite or Kalashnikov and rather easily convert it to fully automatic? Couldn't you just get yourself an illegal automatic gun from the same people you got your illegal hand gun from?
And, seriously, absolutely no one except perhaps the military needs a fully automatic assault rifle. Trust me, the most effective weapon against the biggest predators and game in North America is a shotgun with a slug. You will be able to take down absolutely anything that could ever threaten you with such a weapon - and I firmly believe that long arms should be available to citizens without too much hassle.
That's the point. It has become prohibitively difficult and expensive (impossible in some states) for a citizen to legally own an automatic firearm which might cost a couple hundred bucks on the street.
Posts
So, on topic:
Who thinks comma usage will be a factor here?
The Convention adopted:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But the National Archives have:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It is also interesting that the capitalization is different between the convention and national archives version.
I don't think the commas will play much in this case because the only people that would effect are the strict constructionists and I don't remember but I don't think many are /truly/ strict constructionists.
Which is what I meant by the "/truly/" part of the comment.
which is why it will make ALL the difference, depending on which side the comma benefits more.
Actually, yes, you probably should. The costs of production (and shipping and all that) of cars, plus the costs related to their operation over their useful lifetime vs. something like a comprehensive rail system or bus network (or even bike network) does not bode well for cars. Then we get all of the issues with carbon dioxide and other pollutants that are emitted by cars, and there emerges a very good case for the abolition of private vehicles. That'll never happen, though. The political clout of the car manufacturers in North American is just insane.
Also, on behalf of all Canadians everywhere, I'd like to formally ask all American gun owners to either A) destroy their handguns so they can't be used, or
Guns are rather strictly controlled here in Canada, and it's worked out fairly well, even if the long gun registry continues to be a fiscal fiasco. Handguns have been restricted weapons since 1934, and automatic weapons or any armament that isn't a legal long gun or restricted hand gun is prohibited by law. Furthermore, there are rules governing things like magazine size and the types of ammunition that is legally available to private citizens. All of which have been effective laws at dealing with gun crime, and the vast majority of which don't impact the rights of citizens adversely, nor hit them in the pocketbook.
Well, first of all, we don't let just anyone work. They have to be of sound body and mind before they are allowed out in the work force. If you aren't of sound body and mind, say, you are a child, or your are disabled in such a way that would severely impact your ability to work, the government doesn't let you work. At least here, there's something called the Worker's Compensation Board; if you are hurt on the job and you can't work (for whatever reason), you are legally not allowed to work. The government provides a disability pension. The same if you are a child. You can't work until you are a certain age, and, presumedly, have a certain level of mental and physical prowess that would allow you to work safely.
People want to ban guns because what they do is they put an inordinate amount of power into people's hands that may or may not have the proper knowledge to handle them responsibly. Unless I'm a Montessori teacher or something, I'm not going to let a five year old boil water on a hot stove - why would I do that? The five year old doesn't have the knowledge to act responsibly with regards to both the stove and the boiling water. Through proper education, the five year old may come to a point wherein he could deal with the stove and the boiling water, but even then, I would want to be damn sure that he knew what he was doing before he burnt either himself or the kitchen itself.
That's true of guns as well, but the problem goes further because a gun gives the user more power than a pot of boiling water. It is incredibly easy to do significant and devastating harm to others and yourself, and because of this, it only makes sense that gun ownership and usage should be limited to those who have the knowledge and responsibility to conduct themselves with regards to the guns in the best and safest manner possible. In Canada, before you ever are allowed to own or transport a firearm, you have to take a mandatory safety course (including for long arms), and then thereafter be licensed and have your firearm registered with the government. Even then, only certain types of approved fire arms are allowed to be handled and used by private citizens. Anything approaching tactical or military grade is severely limited and restricted; only the Canadian Forces can use automatic rifles, and only the CF and law enforcement can have rifles that have more than a 5 round magazine or 7 rounds for hand guns.
Britain's guns were highly restricted before this, however. I'd agree that going from "highly restricted" to "really highly restricted" sees diminishing returns.
WHAT
Where's my club and shank I'm taking you down moniker
Shogun Streams Vidya
More Canadians massaging their genitals with copies of Bowling for Columbine. We get it - Canada's great. But if you want to make cars or guns go away, be subtle and raise their prices until they're prohibitively expensive to own, don't ban them.
Obviously, the solution to this is to ban all legally owned handguns in Canada. (Not directed at you, just a general annoyance.) I understand your frustration though, 97% of firearms recovered by Vancouver police are illegal firearms.
Well, yes and no. Firearm crime has tracks at roughly the same rate as violent crime in general. While gun crime has decreased since the last set of new laws (long gun registration) it still follows the same long term trend of gradual decline. It's much easier (and a touch cheaper) to get a handgun illegally than it is to go through the long process of the getting one legally. Magazine size restrictions can usually be defeated without too much effort depending on the design, never mind just getting the illegal version. The big difference is that the people who get the licenses and registrations are the same ones who won't modify a mag or carry a pistol on the street. I would argue difference between Canadian and American homicide rates are less dependant upon firearm laws than other factors.
I'm not against gun control in general and I think having to pass a safety course is a good thing. What I don't like is creating restrictions for law abiding citizens that offer very little or no benefit to the public.
This is part of the public policy question of the DC ban. Does the handgun restriction in "the murder capital of the US" actually reduce gun crime or not? If the answer is no, the ban shouldn't exist no matter how good it makes the lawmakers feel. Not that this has any effect on SCOTUS.
Actually, it's 5 for semi-automatic rifles chambered for centerfire rounds. Bolt action, pump, etc and rimfire rifles have no restrictions. Handguns and restricted rifles are limited to 10 round magazines. Yes, a rifle deemed too dangerous to take anywhere but the range is allowed to have twice the magazine capacity of a hunting/plinking rifle. Speaking of laws that don't make a lot of sense...
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
this works. also tightly controlled and making sure that anyone who gets one knows wtf their doing with them. would work for most drugs too, honestly, whos going to tell me that alcohol and tobacco less dangerous than pot or the coca tree? anyway, i think we just shouldnt let stupid people do things. if you cant pass a comprehensive gun safety test with a score damn close to 100% then you shouldnt be able to own a gun. if you cant do something similar for alcohol, it should be illegal for you to drink at any age. sadly, this is prejudice against the largest group of people in america, so it will never happen. now that i think about it, it should also be true for voting, mightve stopped the current mess.
conclusion: safety tests are good, taking away of ANY of the freedoms we currently enjoy should be considered VERY carefully.
i may have just thought of something that hasnt been said in this thread yet... wouldnt fewer gun laws make it easier for undercover FBI/DEA/ATF/(anyothersthatnormallycarrygunsimnotreallysurewhichonesdo) agents to carry guns unnoticed? its not a big thing, but im not in favor of making exceptions for law enforcement on stuff and im sure every little detail adding to your cover helps. im gueesing criminal orginzations look to see if someone is carrying a police issue firearm, and if they have one from home it just makes it easier. it also makes it easier for then to go to shooting ranges as a recreational thing as well as work, most probably dont, but maybe the few that do dont have such craptastic aim.(ive heard that its REALLY bad) really not big points, but their something to consider.
OH! i know , i say ban everything sharper or capable of moving faster than, say.... a standard carnival-prize goldfish. really, some old dead guy that noone gives a shit about said something about giving up freedom for safety = antihappy so that and the whole constitution thing kinda seal my position on this, especially considering the current supreme court.
also, please excuse anything in the post that sounded stupid. it was. and thats how half lawyer half insurance agent chicken-bears conquered thailand, korea and, most of france in the late 1300s.
I didn't mean that at all, although I can see how I would come off that way. Sorry, but all I know is the Canadian experience with firearms. My issue isn't with legal gun ownership - I myself have a very nice rifle and shotgun that I like to shoot. It's fun. Moose tastes fucking good. I don't want to not be able to do those things. My issue is twofold: first, there are certain types of guns that no one should have - except perhaps the military. Second, most of the gun crime comes from illegal firearms - in Canada, that means either legal firearms that have been stolen from gun owners up here, or, much more commonly, firearms that have been smuggled into Canada from the U.S. Where they may or may not have been legally obtained.
On my first issue, I would really like to see very strict bans or restrictions placed on the ownership of certain types of guns - seriously, who needs a hand gun (except perhaps collectors) that has a barrel 3 inches or smaller? Who, besides the military, needs automatic or semi-automatic (although, there is discussion to be had with regards to semi-auto) weapons? You don't need to be able to pour 30+ rifle rounds into a moose or bear to take it down. You only need that kind of fire power to kill a person that's armoured or has a similar level of fire power.
If restrictions can do their job and prevent proliferation of such things, then they've done their job. In many ways, and this especially goes for the criminal element, fire arms are a collective action problem; as soon as one guy gets one, every one has to get one of they will be at a disadvantage. If one guy wants to be rid of them, he'll be at a disadvantage if he is the only one to not carry or use a firearm. If there is an effective means in place that prevents the people from getting the firearms, then it's a non-issue, and is actually beneficial to criminals and organized crime in general.
That's true enough, I suppose. I'm not a gunsmith, so I don't know what sort of mechanism would be possible to disable larger mag sizes. But, you are right, even then, if one is set on getting a larger mag, all one would have to do is buy it illegally.
What we have right now is a set of half-measures. We have laws and restrictions (like the long-gun registry) that inconvenience law-abiding citizens and gun users overwhelming, while having little to no impact on crime. They are, however, a very good start and if the government went further, then there would be real impact on the problem. What we need to do is make more aggressive laws to deal with not "gun crime" as is traditionally used in the media, but illegal gun ownership and especially smuggling or illegal importation. The problem in the U.S. is that they can't even implement the half-measures - which would still be better than the nothing they have now.
I had no idea. But then, I haven't really thought about it - both my rifle and my father's rifle have a 5 round mag, and they are both bolt action.
I'm pretty sure that's in place to make it possible for athletes to legally compete in bi-athlon. I seem to remember the Olympic-sanctioned rifles are considered restricted weapons in Canada.
Well, semi-autos are nice for plinking, gopher hunting, target shooting, double trap (as are over-unders), bear protection, etc. They're not strictly needed for hunting, but a non-negligible number of hunters use them. I'm with you 100% on automatics and burst fire. As for pistols, I'd like to see two things - first decrease the minimum barrel length to 3.5" or 4". Security guards can walk around a mall with a glock they're not allowed to own. A slight reduction would keep most common pistols in the legal realm. The second would be to include the chamber as part of the barrel for revolvers like they do with semi-autos. I can't for the life of me figure out why the distinction exists, especially with revolvers in that range generally being larger anyway.
I agree with you here.
I don't see how the long gun registry does that. I'd like to see people who possess or carry guns illegally or use them in crime spend a while in jail. I'd like to think it might make people consider if packing on a given night is a good idea. Until we can find a way to slow down the flow of illegal firearms from the US, most restrictions on
Well, that's fairly common. Most bolts seem to have a capacity of 3-5 even when there isn't a law regulating it.
Well, Olympic pistol shooters already have an exemption for the .25 and .32 pistols and ammunition, so I don't see why it would be necessary, but I really don't know about that one.
Hey, what are we doing agreeing on most of this anyway?
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Certain semi-autos are very useful for certain types of hunting - semi auto shotguns and bird hunting leap to mind.
Automatics are already heavily restricted, at least in the US, I don't know about Canada.
This case is SO silly to me.
You have Washington DC, which is a notoriously violent town, with some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet.
You can have a mayor on crack, but I can't have a gun, when I've never broken a law.
You can have liars and thieves running the government, but I can't have a gun.
You can have agency after agency of well trained thugs, gang after gang of ILLEGALLY ARMED criminals but GOD FORBID a citizen carry a gun to stick in a mugger's face.
And then you read the newspaper, you read about murders and gangs, and you cluck to yourselves
"Gosh how did those gangs get so bad? How do all these murderers get away with it?"
Well, you tell me. How does a tiny criminal minority keep a huge city - any city - in fear?
maybe with violence?
And seriously, all this stuff about "you can never resist the government, there's no way you can fight them, so that's a stupid argument for the second amendment" - that's flawed in so many ways.
First off, if a guy twice your size tries to kill you, do you roll over and take it or do you try what you can? Improbability of success does not change your right to attempt to defend yourself.
IRT "The founding fathers didn't know about our military technology" - OK, maybe not - but personal weapons haven't held still. It's not as though the military has made leaps and bounds while civilians still have muskets. And those founding fathers fought off a military armed with ships, cannons, many more and better equipped troops - they used personal firearms until they'd captured or purchased better.
There's also the example of the Civil War, where we saw, clearly, that a civil war inside the US would devide the military as well as the populace. We will never have a situation where the full might of the US military, as we know it, is turned on only civilians.
(oh, and guess what, in the civil war, the south made a remarkable resistance that started with...personal arms and captured arms)
And please can the person who held up two incidents (waco and ruby ridge) that were essentially single families in standoffs with entire government agencies as "militias" or "rebellions" please be held up to greater derision?
There can be no doubt, whatsoever, that the founding fathers ABSOLUTELY saw a gun as a tool with a place in a man's household. It's a fact. The idea of a world where the government tried to tell you you couldn't own a pistol or rifle would anger and scandalize them. Read their writings on the issue. And now, if you want to commemorate them, you have to walk up to their statues unarmed, with your faith firmly in the state. What bullshit.
I mean, jesus.
I host a podcast about movies.
This is just simply untrue, and the kind of thing which shows a very skewed view of how many people live in many different places all over the world - without owning firearms, and without worrying about them much.
Just how restrictive can gun laws be when a 3 hour round trip to the next state can get you a firearm legally? Also, why cant their be training courses involved with getting a gun license. The higher the caliber / lethality the more intensive the course.
Also, letting what criminals have access to, or do, define what laws you pass or how you interpret current laws is a bad idea. Even though trying to enact any gun control laws in the USA at this point is pretty much trying to put the genie back in the bottle. All the criminals already have their guns, and they are not going to give them back because its now more illegal for them to possess and use them. But then again, the sooner you enact the laws, the sooner the market will (begin to) dry up.
MWO: Adamski
Total misrepresentations of the history and development of military tactics ITT. I'll give you a hint: the American revolutionaries pioneered the first use of firearms for a type of small unit combat. Also the French gave you guys an assload of equipment so you could go fight a proper war and raise a standing army.
Also, I am coming to doubt you don't actually know what modern armored vehicles are like. Yeah they get blown up a lot, that doesn't mean they're not incredibly formidable.
1. Our founding fathers intended the American public to be armed as part of the checks and balances approach our government is founded upon. Could the American public win a war against its own military? Probably not. However between divided loyalties, difficulties in urban warfare, and various other issues we see in Iraq an armed and angry populous can make things inconvenient to say the least. Let us hope soldiers are never ordered to fire on civilians, and let us hope civilians never feel the need to fire on soldiers.
2. Gun Legislation targets the weapons that are not used in crimes. Of the 11346 gun related fatalities in 2005 8,478 were from handguns and 2,868 were from "other guns." Of the 55 cops killed in 2005 42 were to handguns and 8 were to "other guns." From the bureau of justice "During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun." Other guns is used as a catchall for non handgun guns. What does that include? Hunting rifles, shotguns, Semi auto assault rifles, anything that is not classified as a handgun. Most gun legislation is aimed at this very category of guns.
3. The average criminal is not going to spend upwards of 15000 on a fully automatic assault rifle, then add another several thousand dollars in equipment just to commit a crime. You see that reflected in the numbers, your average gun collector is going to jump through the hoops, pay his dues, and walk away with a firearm that is likely much more valuable than what he would get from the average crime. We try and ban high capacity magazines, barrel shrouds, and various other additions your weekend warrior is going to understand and care about, but your criminal element is not.
4. If people want fully automatic weapons, let them. People can get them now. They are not used in crimes because they are cost prohibitive. The vast majority if gun crime is commited with cheap disposable guns that wont come under any form of gun regulation. What we see with gun legislation is always targeting the weekend hobbyist. Why pay upwards of 700 dollars for a quality handgun, when you can get something for a hundred dollars without all the paperwork, fingerprinting, and waiting period that cant be traced back to you if you toss it into a dark alley? You want to target the criminal, increase penalties on crimes where a firearm is used.
5. Set up your hoops and your weekend hobbyist will pay the money and fill out the forms so he can show his buddies his new fully automatic, high caliber, killomatic with the extended magazine. All while your criminals continue using cheap disposable firearms. The biggest and only gun legislation that really needs to be passed should be aimed at education. Making more people familiar with firearms, making sure the legal owners are educated and have a level of basic proficiency, and then let the free market do its work.
Jesus, do people actually think like this in the U.S.? That's the most insane thing I've heard in a long time. You are saying that you anticipate the failure of democracy in your own country, and that such a failure is not necessarily a bad thing - and that all citizens should prepare for civil war? What the fuck kind of thinking is that?? Aren't you over killing civilians in the Mid East ostensibly to protect democracy? Why would you want it to fail in your own country?
Which gun legislation, exactly?
Who would ever spend 15 000 on a rifle? I've never bought a gun on the American black market, so I don't really know the actual going rates, but that seems a tad too high. Can't you get yourself a civilian version of an Armalite or Kalashnikov and rather easily convert it to fully automatic? Couldn't you just get yourself an illegal automatic gun from the same people you got your illegal hand gun from?
And, seriously, absolutely no one except perhaps the military needs a fully automatic assault rifle. Trust me, the most effective weapon against the biggest predators and game in North America is a shotgun with a slug. You will be able to take down absolutely anything that could ever threaten you with such a weapon - and I firmly believe that long arms should be available to citizens without too much hassle.
Right, and marijuana is illegal because it's dangerous. Give me a fucking break. You can do more damage with a fully automatic weapon than just about anything else - much more than any drug, legal or illegal, currently available. Private citizens should not have the right or the ability to access such dangerous things just because they want them. We have a military and police forces for a fucking reason - we don't need yokels running around 'protecting' the free world with the most deadly small arms on the planet.
Ah, so we shouldn't target criminals at all in our legislation. Instead, we should make sure that they should be educated as to how to best acquire and use their new, illegal firearms to commit crimes most effectively. Education is only effective when firearms are controlled, and the overly dangerous arms are not available for use by any private citizen - law abiding or otherwise. Restrict the shit out of handguns, and punish not only the criminals involved in using illegal guns, but make the manufacturers and retailers financially liable. In a civil, urban* society (like much of the US is), there is no need for private gun ownership by the citizenry.
* Long gun ownership is a requisite for survival in many parts of rural Canada, and in all the parts that I've ever lived in or been to, I've never seen anyone with a handgun or use their long guns as anything but tools. Because seriously, grizzly bears are fucking scary.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So, if it says in big bold letters, sans caveats, that it "shall not be infringed", how do you get by passing ANY gun legislation? Isn't any restriction of Fire Arms an infringement on that right?
Probably the elastic clause.
??
You could do that with a graded licence system. A basic licence will get you a bolt-action rifle, break-open shotgun or a target pistol. As you gain the higher licences you get access to a semi-auto rifle, a pump action shotgun etc. There's a whole new revenue stream there for the NRA through selling training courses.
Also, to paraphrase Chris Rock, "We don't need gun control, we need bullet control." - nobody needs a thousand rounds to defend their home from a burglar.
Unfortunately I can't think of a way to limit the maximum ammo someone can own at one time without having a register of every person's ammo purchases and making them return the empty shells before buying more. You could restrict the amount someone can buy in one transaction like we do with over the counter medication, but someone who wants to get around that will just tour the gunshops until they've got as much as they want. One solution might be to make ammo ludicrously expensive if you buy it to take home but dirt cheap if you using it on a range. However, that would fuck over hunters and people who have the space to target shoot at home.
To be honest, it might be more economical for the government to offer to buy back illegally owned weapons no questions asked. That does run the risk of people breaking into gun shops to sell the weapons back to the government.
What do the capabilities of modern military armor have to do with what I posted? As for the use of guerrilla tactics by the founding fathers until they could procure foreign support, that sort of supports my point. 10 Russian invasions of Afghanistan were pushed back with superior knowledge of home ground and superior marksman with semi-autos (some of them actually had old M1s and Lee-Enfields) vs inferior training and superior equipment. What about the chilling effect armed citizenry had on Japanese attempts to land on the west coast in WWII?
What don't you and saggio get about this?
YES, the constitution implies every American should prepare for civil war or domestic invasion. YES, that is what it says, yes that is what many people believe.
What the fuck is the disconnect here? Why is that held to be such a tremendously implausible situation? Ignoring how silly it may or may not be, And WHAT HARM is done by the guns of people that believe it? Are there rabid constitutionalists robbing 7-11s for ammo money?
IRT to saggio's specific questions about automatics: Automatic weapons in civilian hands have been heavily regulated for a very long time and are individually tracked and heavily taxed- only serious or wealthy collectors and the occasional hollywood stunt studio can really afford to own them. You'd have to be tapped into the international black market to buy one, and it would probably be an overpriced Ukranian "cobra piece of junk."
Which is unconstitutional, if you ask me, since it prevents the everyman from arming himself in a way that allows him to realistically oppose a modern military :P
Proves your point about gun control? Mayhap. But that situation did not arise from any gun control legislation in our lifetime - it is the result of the National Firearms Act, an old law that INTELLIGENTLY divides guns into categories and INTELLIGENTLY makes provisions for ownership exceptions, grandfathering, and enforcement - it is 100 times the piece of legislation most proposed gun control law is.
Also, IRT to Gorak et al - I actually do, 100% support a system of graduated licensing for handguns, both as sensible stand-alone legislation and as a constitutionally viable alternative to individual gun registration.
I also think HEAVY targeting and profiling of those who purchase guns and report them stolen would be a realistic measure to keep guns off the street.
I host a podcast about movies.
The people in Afghanistan were receiving a shitload of funding and weapons from various government.
The people who do believe it are often people like the Patriot groups.
Still not sure what this means.
Anyway, since we're already interpreting restrictions into the 2nd amendment that aren't even there, what's wrong with a few more? How can one level of infringement be constitutional and the other not, when the amendment itself calls for none at all?
So, in the past, in these situations, outside support has offset the issue of the establishment's superior firepower, and that INVALIDATES the idea that such a standoff would be viable for the civilian side?
You're saying my Imaginary Candyland Scenario is silly because you're escalating it to a situation where the government has ringed all the crazy up in montana and moved heavy armor and air support in on them . . . that's NOT EXACTLY the idea. The idea is that the concept of an armed citizen and the inexact numbers thereof reduces the viability of tyrannic policy before it is enacted. Failing that, the "backup plan" as it were is to offer some sort of resistance until the military fragments politically or international assistance is available. You know, what guerrillas all over the world have done.
Titmouse, I don't know what you mean about "patriot" groups - did a group of patriots take over a building and start selling crack? Have roving patriots been mugging people on the subway? The one MAJOR crime I can think of that was perpetrated by right-wing nuts was not committed with ANY commercially available weapon, but rather with an improvised munition.
I host a podcast about movies.
All of this ignores the fact that pretty much every civilian resistance has ended horribly since the 20th century. Afghanistan is now a shithole. After international support for the rebels come in, how the hell is the government supposed to be set up? I see no reason to believe that people will go back to the old government. Instead, a shitty government filled with extreme cronyism usually is formed. All of that international aid won't come out of the good of the countries' hearts. They will expect to gain a lot from it. The number one defense against tyrannies is to make sure that the government continues to run with normal checks and balances.
All I'm going to say is that after looking through statistics for both American and Canadian rural and metropolitan crime rates, gun control and/or the proliferation of weapons has a negligible effect on violent crime rates. In fact, the only correlations I saw between crime rates in either country had to do with areas of extreme poverty, that is, in both nations, areas that exist in third world conditions of squalor (Like the forgotten Native reserves in Canada) homicide rates were eight times the national average. In both nations.
I support licensing and testing for people that want to own firearms. I support this for the same reason I support licensing and testing for people that want to own cars. They are tools capable of significant damage and death and the people using them should know how to use them safely.
Really, the idea that guns = violence has never once been supported by any kind of evidence ever and why people keep thinking this is something that grates on me like little else.
OK, so your argument is that because war is devastating, you should capitulate to invaders? I see what you mean about the cronyistic new government, though - the muslim taliban that came to power in Afghanistan was a TOTAL puppet for US interests, for example.
Yes, it's all well and good to say "armed resistence is very difficult and dangerous and we should all just get along" but to say because its better to do A, we should neuter ourselves in case of B...I don't see the point of that.
And those "republic of texas" guys? They would fall under what I mentioned before about isolated crackpots not being real examples. I knew those guys. They were isolated crackpots. The argument does assume that the party in rebellion has some sort of popular support and legitimate complaint. No one was going to bail the 14-man republic of texas out of the horrible injustices of life in the modern united states.
I host a podcast about movies.
Actually, with enough time, money, and permits, you can get fully automatic rifles in the US, which do have to be registered. From what I've read, it's at least $10,000 to legally get an automatic rifle. It turns out that two people in the US have been murdered with legally owned automatic weapons, one of which was by a police officer. Just goes to show that the people who are willing to jump through a lot of hoops to own firearms are the people most likely to use them safely.
In most cases, it's either very, very difficult or impossible to convert a semi-auto into a full auto. I seem to remember a law against semi's that could be turned into autos, but my google-fu seems to be weak today.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Is that even a sentence? If we break it up by clauses it might be:
A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It depends on what is the main clause and what the other clauses are doing. Is the primary focus on militias? Is the primary focus on the right to keep and bear arms?
I think the "being necessary to the security of a free state" is the primary focus, the main concept being stressed. The rest of it modifies and clarifies, through a lack of clarity, what is necessary.
My guess is that the focus is not "Everyone ever ought to have guns always" but rather "States need to be Free" and the result of that is that gun ownership is required.
While it may be true, do guns = safer environments? Is giving civilians things that are designed to kill the smartest thing to do?
And when you say that gun control doesn't mean less violent crime, do you take into account how many of these violent crimes result in people dieing from gunshots? Because I'm pretty sure the USA has the highest rate of gunshot deaths per capita than most countries.
So, basically, the easiest and most logical answer is that we let people own guns, but force them to get licenses before they can own one or use one in any but the most controlled of conditions. Kind of like we do with cars.
But the gun nuts hate it because oh my god any regulation is terrible, and gun haters hate it because oh my god no one should ever own a gun ever.
Wow. I still think it's absurd to pay $10 000 for a rifle, and also to allow non-military people to use or own them.
I'm kind of wondering if George Bush gave any thought to this when he allowed the torture of prisoners of war. What's that? It didn't even occur to him?
If you and your buddies having guns doesn't stop your federal government from torturing people (which is ILLEGAL in your Constitution), monitoring the communications of private citizens without court order, or racially profiling the brown people, what does it stop? Seriously, there's a bit of range in my examples, but they all don't seem to jive with the basic principles enumerated in the other, non Second Amendment parts of your Constitution. Aren't you supposed to be rising up with your fully automatic rifles, now? Or is torture and totalitarian infringements upon the privacy rights of citizens not tyrannical enough for you?
No. Just no. First of all, the Mujahadeen were funded by the Arab League (primarily Saudi Arabia), provided with modern weapons (including shoulder mounted AA missles) by the U.S. Military, and trained by the CIA and military advisors. The only reason why the Soviets and their Communist Party allies did not utterly crush the rebels has to do with the complex geopolitical realities of the day; the economic situation of the USSR at the time, its bilateral relations with countries in central Asia, and its interests in the Middle East. Also, the Soviets were there for 10 years and killed close to a million people, while suffering themselves much less in terms of casualities
You can fantasize all you want about fighting off a superior, modern force all day long. But you can do that just as well without hand guns or automatic rifles.
That's the point. It has become prohibitively difficult and expensive (impossible in some states) for a citizen to legally own an automatic firearm which might cost a couple hundred bucks on the street.